Synergy Project Management, Inc. v. City and County of San Francisco et al

Filing 161

ORDER TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTIONAL BRIEF re: 159 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order. Plaintiff's supplemental brief due 4/11/2021. Defendants' optional responsive brief due 4/15/2021. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on April 7, 2021. (jstlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/7/2021)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

SYNERGY PROJECT MANAGEMENT,
INC.,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 17-cv-06763-JST
ORDER TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL
JURISDICTIONAL BRIEF
Re: ECF No. 159

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN
FRANCISCO, et al.,
Defendants.

13
14

Plaintiff Synergy Project Management, Inc. has filed an emergency motion for a temporary

15

restraining order, order to show cause, and preliminary injunction. ECF No. 159. Synergy seeks

16

an order requiring Defendants City and County of San Francisco and Mayor London Breed to (1)

17

confirm that they have sought and obtained correspondence from Mayor Breed’s personal

18

computer and personal email account related to the matters in Synergy’s case, (2) take immediate

19

steps to preserve any such correspondence, and (3) certify their preservation of such

20

correspondence. ECF No. 159-2.

21

“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of

22

Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). The district court is under a continuing duty to establish its own

23

subject matter jurisdiction. Krug v. Woods, 9 F.3d 1552 (9th Cir. 1993).

24

The basis for federal jurisdiction is not apparent from the face of the motion, given that

25

there currently are no active claims pending before this Court. On November 21, 2019, the Court

26

dismissed with prejudice all of Synergy’s federal claims and remanded Synergy’s state law claims.

27

ECF No. 128 at 15-16. Synergy has appealed the Court’s final judgment, see ECF No. 132, and

28

oral argument is scheduled to be heard in that appeal on April 26, 2021. See Case No. 19-17558,

1

Dkt. No. 60.1 Synergy’s state law claims are pending in the San Francisco County Superior Court.

2

See ECF Nos. 131, 143-2.
Synergy’s only proffered basis for jurisdiction is Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62(d).2

3
4

ECF No. 159 at 7. Rule 62(d) states that “[w]hile an appeal is pending from an interlocutory order

5

or final judgment that grants, continues, modifies, refuses, dissolves, or refuses to dissolve or

6

modify an injunction, the court may suspend, modify, restore, or grant an injunction on terms for

7

bond or other terms that secure the opposing party’s rights.” Rule 62(d) does not apply because

8

the Court’s final judgment did not involve an injunction.
Synergy is ordered to file a supplemental brief by no later than April 11, 2021, identifying

9

the basis for this Court’s jurisdiction. Defendants may, but are not required to, file a responsive

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

brief by April 15, 2021.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

12
13

Dated: April 7, 2021
______________________________________
JON S. TIGAR
United States District Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

The Court notes that Synergy has also filed a motion for a relief from judgment pursuant to Rule
60(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or, in the alternative, for an indicative ruling
pursuant to Rule 62.1. ECF No. 138. That motion is under submission.
Although Synergy’s papers cite to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62(c), the language they
quote is from Rule 62(d). This may be due to Synergy’s reliance on a case issued prior to the
2018 amendment to Rule 62 which reorganized the subdivisions. See ECF No. 159 at 7 (citing
Christian Sci. Reading Room Jointly Maintained v. City & County of San Francisco, 784 F.2d
1010, 1017 (9th Cir.), amended, 792 F.2d 124 (9th Cir. 1986)).
2
2